Posts from Academy of Sciences of Heroesland

"objective truth, i.e., knowledge whose content does not depend on either the individual or humanity."

I reason about truth from the perspective of dialectical materialism

testable hypothesis

does Vishmaster's argument on the topic of "food substitute is worse than regular food" satisfy you?

You don't understand philosophy very well. And this is the environment in which most of these people were raised.


And how are you going to measure knowledge? Scan the brain?

OMG, what nonsense. I didn't even write that.

Okay. What is respect? It is reverence. That is, to some extent, humiliation.

No. Because my moral needs are not being satisfied, and I prioritize them over physiological needs. At least for that reason.

How are you going to measure knowledge? Scan the brain?

You don't understand philosophy very well.

The level of knowledge can be measured by a test compiled by a third party who does not know for whom the test is being created, but who is knowledgeable in the given discipline.
Essentially, the measurability of the level of knowledge acquisition is the basis of any education.

Don't contradict yourself.

Moral needs say one thing.
The laws of nature say the exact opposite.

Firstly, again, knowledge and experience are two different things. A person with experience, in this case, a professor, possesses extensive knowledge in the field he works in, but that doesn't mean he has more knowledge about other fields. So, this test of yours doesn't prove anything.

You can read in Wikipedia that respect is reverence. And the fact that reverence is, to some extent, humiliation is also true, because you acknowledge that there is a person whose merits surpass yours and you lower your self-esteem.

Firstly, knowledge and experience are two different things. A person with experience, in this case, a professor, possesses extensive knowledge in the field they work in, but that doesn't mean they have more knowledge about other areas. So, this test of yours doesn't prove anything.

You can read in Wikipedia that respect is a form of reverence. And the fact that reverence involves a degree of humility is also true, because you acknowledge that there is a person whose merits surpass yours and you lower your self-esteem.

In my opinion, a person's calling is to create harmony in their coexistence with nature, not to resemble animal instincts of satiation. A person is a creation of reason, not of nature.

An example from my own experience: at the beginning of my first year, I clearly understood that there were three people in the group who were smarter than me. As a result, I acknowledged this fact and delved into my studies, and now I am on equal footing with them.

Let's assume that fulfilling your moral needs ultimately makes you weaker, less intelligent, and less far-sighted.
What is more important: understanding and controlling the world, or submitting to the world?

You haven't made yourself any smarter by doing this. You've simply satisfied your ambitions.


Moral needs don't make a person weaker or less intelligent. They are dictated by reason and will.

You haven't made yourself any smarter by doing this. You've just satisfied your ambitions.

Explain why I didn't become smarter from absorbing and using a vast amount of information and from gaining valuable experience in many areas of life?

And yes. Moral needs do not negate the fact that new drugs should first be tested on animals. Mathematical modeling doesn't work; medicine is phenomenological.
Experiments on humans are even less ethical.

Are you saying that a person doesn't become smarter in the process of learning?

Your so-called "database of information" could contain not only your knowledge of subjects but also other data. This is not a criterion for intelligence. The fact that you have gained some experience certainly says something, but the way you boast about it speaks to its imperfection.


A person has the right to sacrifice themselves in the name of their moral convictions. No one is forcing you to consume ZP, so don't eat it. But don't dictate to others how they should act.

I meant that sitting at a desk and satisfying one's personal ambitions is not the basis of knowledge.

I wanted to say that sitting at a desk and satisfying one's personal ambitions is not the foundation of knowledge.

Give me a criterion for intelligence and a clear, consistent, and singular definition of intelligence. In your own words. I'll give you a hint: from your words, it follows that learning does not develop intelligence.

And if my moral convictions say that "I cannot, by action or inaction, allow harm to be done to a person"? What then, whose moral laws are stronger?